A Supererogatory action is an action that goes above and beyond one's moral duty, but how can this be a possible perspective in christian ethics when Jesus seems to teach against it? Such as these scriptures:
Matthew 22:36-39 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
How can we go above our moral duty when Jesus teaches that we are to continually love the Lord with all that we are. If s performs an action x that were good but there were a greater action y that s were aware of, then according to these scriptures s should have performed y. How then can this be compatible with supererogatory actions?
You know I have a series of posts on wellofquestions arguing that supererogation does not have a place in a properly Christian ethical system. I'd be interested to know what you thought about my views on the subject and how they relate to what you're currently thinking about.
ReplyDelete--krause
I just read them. I am very impressed by your thinking on this issue. I especially thought your use of James was Clever. In your experience do most Orthodox reject supererogatory actions? I know that Richard Swineburn is not the most orthodox Eastern Orthodox so the fact that he holds to it should not lead me to think that all accept supererogation.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless,
Nate
Paul's discussion of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7 is the main passage that proponents of supererogatory acts usually reference. For example, Melanchthon argued that celibacy is an act going beyond the call of duty, but it is the only one. Dr. Greg Mellema's (a professor at Calvin College) book "Going Beyond the Call of Duty" is a decent introduction and defense of supererogation (I don't find the defense all that compelling though).
ReplyDelete-Noah
Hello Noah,
ReplyDeleteI am aware of the use of the passage to justify supererogation. In context of verse 28 which reads "But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that."
Paul's point here is not that one is going beyond obligation when he says it is better in verse 38, rather what Paul is saying that so and so is doing better in the sense that his tasks as a christian will be easier. The statement is merely a pragmatic one and not an ethical one.
Thank you for your thoughts...
God Bless,
NPT
You should take a look at Robert Adams' "Christian Liberty" in Thomas V. Morris, ed., Philosophy and the Christian Faith. Adams argues that we can't make sense of Christian ethics if we reject supererogation.
ReplyDeleteHello Kenny,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for the references! Do by chance recall the general structure of his argumentation?
God Bless,
NPT
There are two main Scriptural arguments: one is that those who deny supererogation can give no plausible account of 'Christian liberty' as described in the NT. He spends a lot of time doing philosophical interpretation of texts bearing on that. The second main line of Scriptural argument is that opponents of supererogation are stuck with the implausible claim that the woman in Mark 14:3-7 would have been morally deficient if she had sold the ointment and given the money to the poor. I think there may also have been some more abstract philosophical arguments.
ReplyDeleteHello Kenny,
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can see there is nothing implausible with saying that a person can perform two equally good actions x or y. This seems to me to be a fine account of Christian liberty. I am free to refrain from drinking a beer and I am free to not drink a beer; both are equally good and I am free to do either. There is no appeal to supererogation in this account of christian liberty.
On Mark 14:3-7 why couldn't one say that both using ointment on Jesus and giving it to the poor are equally good? The women simply choose to do one of the equal goods and she was praised for it, but had she done the other she would have been praised for that as well.
Thank you for that brief summary Kenny.
God Bless,
NPT